Would the cost/savings also depend on the 'predictability' of the infrastructure needs? To me, it seems like there is a dependency.
For example if I can project steady growth or decline of my needs, it seems that I benefit less from the infrastructure-on-demand like AWS/Azure/GC
Also, depending on the size of the organization it seems that there at least several options on data centers:
- have my own data center
- collocate my hardware in other's data center
- rent hardware
- use infrastructure-on-demand + software-as-a-service
AWS/Azure/GC are in 4th category, but cost savings in terms of electricity/building capacity/peering points are available in the first 3 as well.
Many organizations deploy Pivotal's
https://pivotal.io/industries/financial-services
or Redhat/OpenStack
So they are not actually 'building' the infrastructure management layer from scratch.
Also for investment banks (due to exchange connectivity) , telecoms (due to peering points, physical tower locations) always going to have their 'Front-office' applications in data centers that offer lowest latency for those apps.
Midoffice applications (or BOSS as they are labeled in telecom) can live in data centers reasonably distant (in terms of ping time) from the front office.
So the infrastructure for those has a different cost profile.
Most of this applications touch trades or trade events that carry millions of dollars worth of contract value
(not Facebook's likes or favorites... )
There is a lot of logging, reconciliation, post executing enrichment that's probably going on.
Finally, from my 2nd hand understanding,
Investment banks can have from 3K to 10K applications in production. With, perhaps 20% of them having more than million lines of code.
Some of those apps are built in their own proprietray languages developed specifically to manage contracts and lifecycle of contracts (Banks had 'smart contracts' DSL and interpreters since 90s).
https://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/282097/slang-goldma...